Loading...
HDC_04 11 2016Page 1 of 33 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 11, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Page Wilson Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: Jennifer Carman City Attorney: Tom Carpenter Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Dan Fowler Chris Moses Jamie Moses Ray Nolan Jimmy Moses Rett Tucker Frank Barksdale Stephan McAteer Tony Curtis Daniel Bryant Rachael Scott Bailey Scott Becky Tucker Marshall Peters Karol Zoeller Cheri Nichols Molly Satterfield Wendy Hudgeons Laura Sergeant Bob Longo Amy Longo Boyd Maher Kelly Eichler Tommy Jameson Johnathan Shively Johnathan Opitz Doug Meyer Mike Stevenson Emily Madden Chris Bahn Brennan Wells Alysia Wells James Sullivan Kyle Heflin Jamie Borg David Cowan Ann Johnson Mark Brown Jill Judy Brian Duncan Greyson Skokos Michael Puckett Troy Deal George Campbell Lisa Spann Maureen Huitt Becky Tucker Candi Ginlutzo Mary Kelley John Hoffeimer Roxanne Litchholt Gabe Holmstrom London Grandlson Eric Nelson Charley Penix Margit Yarnell John Martin Francis Donald Maureen Huitt Candi Gulutzo DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 33 Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2016 meeting as amended was made by Commissioner Toni Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Carman). Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to amend the agenda to move the COA for 901 Scott to the beginning of the meeting. The motion was seconded by and seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Carman). Page 3 of 33 DATE: April 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Ray Nolan, Moses Tucker ADDRESS: 901 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Infill multi-family structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 901 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1-6, Block 25, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is a vacant lot. The 1889 and the 1892 Sanborn maps show three houses along Scott Street, a duplex at 901/905 Scott and two houses to the south. The 1897 and 1913 Sanborn maps show an additional house facing Scott with the duplex still on the north corner at 901/905 Scott. The 1939 map shows three houses facing Scott with the duplex at the corner gone. The 1939-1950 map shows the filling station on the north corner and two houses to the south. This application is for new construction of a 53 unit one and two bedroom multifamily apartment building. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 10, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy to demolish the filling station at 901 Scott Street. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. Location of Project Page 4 of 33 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Proposed Front (West) Façade for March 14, 2016 hearing Page 5 of 33 Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be reviewed: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS …related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 6 of 33 with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) …related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10) New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Page 7 of 33 Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction. The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the following criteria:  Architectural style  General design  General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures  Siting  Height  Proportion  Rhythm  Roof area  Entrance area  Wall areas  Detailing  Facade  Scale  Massing West (Front) façade for March 14, 2016 hearing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed apartments is traditional. GENERAL DESIGN The apartments front along Scott Street and built to the property line. Nine of the units that are on the ground floor facing Scott Street will have exterior doors with outside raised patios that will be fenced. All of the units will be accessed through interior hallways and stairwells. The three story building will feature pitched roofs with accent gables. The facades will be of brick and Hardie plank siding. Windows will be of a vertical proportion with accenting flower boxes. The entire site will be surrounded by a metal fence. Parking and amenities will be on the east side of the building. There will be awnings over the patio doors clad in Hardiepanel vertical siding with Hardietrim Page 8 of 33 board accents. All exterior doors will feature similar awnings over the doors. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES List of materials used with some items described being in the handouts: Louvers to be in the top of the gables on the east and west side are Ruskin ELF30V in white. Chimney caps are to be custom similar to the Artisan Wright Custom Chimney shroud in the handouts. Roof shingles to be Atlas Stormmaster Slate in Hearthstone. Gutters will be 5x5 inch in white with white downspouts. Hardie trim will be 5/4 boards with smooth finish. Brick will be from Antique Brick and Block in Rosedale Blend. Typical window on the second and third floors will be 32”x60” Comfort View Products Single hung in white with 3 vertical over one pane arrangement. Typical windows on the first floor will be three ganged windows the same as the upper floors. The Hardie Plank lap siding will have a 4” Exposure. The patio doors will be Masonite steel door with 3 equal horizontal panels with a painted finish. Flower boxes will be placed on the most of the west facing widows. They are to be Hood and lattice 36” Simple Elegance Cage ow similar. Wall sconces are Braxton Sconces in weathered zinc finish. SITING The building is proposed to be built on the property line along Scott Street. The setbacks on 9th and 10th streets are approximately 10 feet. The building is 63’ deep. The parking lot is between the building and the alley. There is no access to the parking lot from the alley. Entrance to the parking lot will be from- both 9th Street and 10th Street. The parking lot will have about 50 parking spaces. Landscaping in the parking lot has yet to be reviewed against the landscape ordinance. Tree location and bed areas may change. The planter beds along Scott Street, as well as the trees, lights and sidewalk arrangement are in the public right-of-way and are not reviewed by the commission. HEIGHT The height of the building is proposed to be 50’ tall. This is taller than the houses across the street and on the block. The remaining houses across Scott are all two story houses and the apartments across the alley are also two story. The vast majority of contributing residential structures in the area of influence are two story. The two commercial structures are Proposed Brick Proposed shingles Page 9 of 33 one story. The topography slopes on this lot. The first floor finished floor level will step down the site so that the finished floor level will vary from 2.5’ to 3.5 feet depending on the actual conditions. Therefore, the fencing and the raised patios will stair step down the slope. PROPORTION The proportion of the overall building is long but vertical. The chimneys that are placed at the ends of the buildings ads to the verticality. RHYTHM The building has a regular rhythm of windows along all of the facades. The variation between brick and siding give an irregular rhythm to the façade that breaks up the massing. The rhythm of the gates and fences on the raised patios give the effect of separate townhouse units, but the gables on the roof do not line up with the brick/siding accents on the façade. ROOF AREA The three story building will feature 8 ½ / 12 pitched roofs with 8 accent gables facing Scott Street with the long axis of the primary roof running parallel with Scot t Street. The rear façade has the same gables. ENTRANCE AREA The building will have four entrances, one in the center of each façade. The south and north side entrances will have handicap ramps incorporated into the walkways. The west entrance will be the main one and will have gates in line with the gates and fences of the raised patios. The west entrance lobby will be in the center of the building. The entrance are on the east side of the building will be partially obscured by the 7’ tall concrete block wall surrounding the swimming pool at the back of the building. The individual raised patio entrances will feature cast-in-place concrete steps and concrete patio surface. WALL AREAS The variation between brick and siding give an irregular rhythm to the façade that breaks up the massing. However, if the brick accent areas were to extend to the roof or the top of the gables, the building would be more likely to look like row houses instead of apartments. The pattern of brick, siding, brick, siding would appear as separate houses to more reflect the separate houses across Scott Street. DETAILING The detailing of this building is more traditional with wide trim boards around the windows, doors and corners of the building. Flower boxes will be installed at the window sill of most of the west facing windows. Wide trim boards enhance an exaggerated cornice in some parts of the building. FAÇADE The north and south facades appear to be two houses that have been connected. The center area will feature Hardiepanel vertical siding smooth texture with Tamly Xtreme trim with 1/2” reveals. This detail will be at all four entrances. The West (front) entrance wi ll have windows on the second and third floor. The west entrance will also feature a railing that matches the fencing over the entry awning. SCALE The scale of the building is quite larger than the surrounding buildings. MASSING The massing of the building is reduced with the setbacks of the façade and the differing treatment of the materials with the brick and siding. The raised patios along Scott Street soften the massing by introducing a more human scale element to the street. Page 10 of 33 FENCE The fence along the east property line at the alley will be a 6’ wood privacy fence with the salts laid horizontally. The fence along the other three property lines will be an Ameristar Montage Classic welded steel fence. The fences along Scott Street at the raised patios are shown below. There will be 6’ tall gate with a 42” fence on the raised patio. Fencing around the dumpsters will be 10’ tall concrete block walls with painted skim coat. The gates will be to match iron fencing on site with a solid metal plate behind the gates. Gates will swing into the right-of-way and Public Works will need to issue a franchise permit for that. Wood Slat Privacy Fence Ameristar Montage Plus Classic Fence Detail of fencing at private entrances along Scott Street for March 14, 2016 hearing The project described has many nuances. The style blends with the surrounding contributing structures: the majority of structures are contributing in the area of influence. The building sits on the Scott Street right-of-way, which is closer than the buildings on the other side of Scott Street. This is necessary to fit the parking lot on the east side of the building in the rear of the building. The height is a three story building with a raised foundation and is generally one story Page 11 of 33 taller than the surrounding buildings. The building is a long building at 277 feet long. The massing has been broken up with the differing brick and siding details. The building could blend with the area better by changing the pattern of brick and siding. There are eight gables on the west side of the building. If the brick were to extend to the from the bottom of the raised patios to the top of every other gable, in addition to the existing setback variation in the floor plan, this would better emulate the rhythm of single family structures across the street. The perceived mass when walking down the Scott Street sidewalk could be lessened by varying the height of the gates below the accompanying railing on the raised patio. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Obtain Franchise Permit for trash dumpster enclosure gate swinging into right -of-way. 3. Approval of the Landscape plan. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. He stated that there were two phone calls in opposition, three neutral emails and eleven emails in support of deferral. Commissioner Page Wilson commented that the drawing state that they are a progress set. He asked if we had a final construction set. Mr. Minyard stated that we did not and described the process of checking the elevations through the building permitting process and on site inspections. Rett Tucker, of Moses Tucker, stated that they tried to meet the guidelines of the district for this building. There are other three story buildings in the district and across Scott Street are two story buildings. He listed other three story buildings in the district. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked about the power lines along the street. Mr. Tucker said that they will be moved to the alley. Commissioner Pekar continued about the lack of green space in the area and mentioned the dog park. Mr. Tucker responded with the nine entrances along Scott Street, it would be more entrances that if you had six single family houses. Commissioner Pekar noted that there is not any parking on Scott Street, where the guest parking was going to be, and the overall number of parking spaces. Mr. Minyard responded that this was UU zoning district and that zero parking spaces were required. He stated that the job of the commission was to look at materials of the parking lot and the location of the lot. Mr. Tucker hoped that every one of the tenants does not have a car eventually and thinks that overly large parking lots are counterproductive. He spoke of the zoning regulations, with the height, mass and parking. Commissioners Jennifer Carman and Dick Kelley left the meeting because of their conflict of interest. They did not return for the rest of the meeting. James Sullivan, of AMR Architects, described the building with some of it being 6’-0” back from the property line and some 8’-8” back. The portions of the building that are shown in red are farther back from the property line. He also spoke of the three foot planting strip in the right of way area along the building that will be requested. Commissioner Pekar said that she went out Page 12 of 33 and measured from the street and sidewalk to the proposed setback. Mr. Minyard reminded the Commission that they did not review items that are in the right-of-way. Chair BJ Bowen reminded the applicant that they would need four of the five members present voting in favor to have their item approved. Commissioner Wilson stated that in UU that they could build right up to the property line. Vice Chair Russell stated that that has nothing to do with the Commissions review. Mr. Tucker commented on the Legion Village Apartments was set on the property line. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell said that this commission does not set precedence. He continued that this project is not appropriate for this site and that the height is a serious issue. The proposed building towers over the other buildings. Mr. Sullivan distributed handouts to the commissioners and Staff. He spoke of the three story blue house at 1004 Scott Street with a taller roof. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that the blue house is technically a two and one half story building and his is a three and one half. She asked what was happening in the dormer space and if he could modify the roof by lowering it. She asked what the building would look like if it was a two and one half story building. Mr. Sullivan spoke of keeping the floor to ceiling heights and the number of desired units. Commissioner Pekar stated that this may make the building more attractive. Commissioner Johnson commented that the building was huge. She commented that maybe the structure could be broken into three separate structures. She continued that she appreciated the different materials but the overall massiveness was an issue. She spoke of the emails that talked about the scale of the building. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated that the blue house was originally built as a single family house. Park Avenue apartments on Commerce have a courtyard area with a low fence with sidewalks that are inviting. The church that was mentioned does not have anything to do with the project. The Cumberland Tower does not help your argument. Mr. Sullivan stated that the comments were height related. Commissioner Pekar said that the massiveness is overwhelming. She stated that the streetscape should be cohesive. Vice Chair Russell commented on the 3 foot tall brick wall supporting the raised patios and the 42 inch fence on top. Mr. Sullivan stated that it did provide interaction with the street. Vice Chair Russell disagreed and stated that all interaction would be through the bars of the fence. Brian Duncan, owner of the print shop at Cumberland and 9th, spoke in favor of the application. He appreciates that they are doing something in the area. His only concern is the overflow parking. He has a large parking lot to the east and will have to deal with the illegal parkers. The site has been a hangout for undesirable types for some time. Commissioner Johnson asked him his hours of operation. He stated it was normally 7-5 pm but his workers are there longer. The Phillips apartments to the south can park on his lots. The cars must be removed by morning. All of the available spaces are used by his employees and customers. Mark Brown, owner of multiple properties in the district, said that the property had been vacant too long. He would love to see something built there. He commented that parking was Page 13 of 33 available on the west side of Scott Street and that adequate parking is available for the renters. Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that they generally agreed with staff comments but have comments on the height. The QQA is supportive of infill and that Moses Tucker has a good track record. She hoped that something could be worked out on the site. Mary Bray Kelley, owner and resident of 914 Scott is opposed to the application. She stated that her great grandfather had built the houses on the west side of Scott in 1874. The house she lives in has been in her family since that time. Although some houses have been converted to mutli-family, they still convey the same single family sense. Several aspects of the proposal concern her. She does not feel that the building at 50 feet tall and 27 feet long blends with the area. The small setbacks are not similar to the existing. She spoke of the high number of contributing structures in the area and must have a higher standard of compliance with the guidelines. The role of the commission is not just to preserve structures, but the ambiance of the district. She appreciates Moses Tucker but this structure is not suited for this location. John Bush, owner and resident of the Lincoln House at 7th and Cumberland, recognizes the contributions to downtown that Moses Tucker has done. The HDC should support residential uses as the highest and best use. Profitability should not be the highest priority of this proje ct and echoed Ms. Kelley’s comments. He spoke of the process and the recusal of the two members. Vice Chair Russell said that the conflict is nearby property owners. Mr. Bush stated that there was less representation of property owners on the items because of the recusals. Vice Chair Russell stated that they have a direct financial interest if this project goes through. Mr. Bush made a request to reexamine recusals on commissioners. Commissioner Johnson stated that he had insightful comments. Chair Bowen reminded Mr. Tucker that he will need 4 of the 5 remaining commissioners to vote in favor of the item to pass. Mr. Tucker stated that he wanted to defer the item because he did not think he would get four votes today. Chair BJ Bowen stated that the next meeting would be in April and suggested that he work with staff to make modifications to the application. Vice Chair Russell asked what happened if the vote for a deferral did not receive a majority. Mr. Minyard stated that the motion would fail and then you would need to vote on the item. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the item to the April 11, 2016 meeting and Commissioner Pekar seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Kelley and Carman). Chair Bowen thanked the application for his time and hoped that they could find a solution. STAFF UPDATE: March 14, 2016 Staff met with the applicant on March 16th to discuss any changes to the drawings before the next HDC meeting. The applicant discussed some preliminary changes and submitted final changes to the Staff before the March 28 deadline. Several changes have been made to the submission since the last review. The changes will be reviewed in the following paragraphs. See letter from AMR dated 3/28/16 on page ________ of this report. Page 14 of 33 West elevation for April 11, 2016 hearing. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed apartments are unchanged. GENERAL DESIGN The apartments front along Scott Street and have been moved back from the Scott Street property line. The building wall is proposed to sit at 11 and 15 feet back from the property line. The porches will extend approximately 5 feet toward the street with the ultimate setback at 6 to 10 feet back. The 3 center apartments facing Scott Street have been removed to create a courtyard roughly in the center of the building. The rear units remain so the number of unites have changed from 53 to 50. This courtyard is approximately 37 feet wide by 29’ deep. This courtyard will reduce the perceived length of the building when travelling up Scott Street from a building that was 277 feet long to two buildings, one 114 feet long and the northern wing at 126 feet long. This reduces the perceived mass of the building when walking or driving along Scott Street. With the deletion of the center units, all eight of the units that are on the ground floor facing Scott Street will have exterior doors with outside access. The raised patios that were in the original submission have now been changed to porches that will sit approximately two feet above grade. Instead of awnings over the doors facing Scott Street, porches are proposed to be built. The porches will be approximately two feet above grade, concrete porch floor with cast in place concrete steps. There will be a metal painted handrail on either side of the steps. There will be a wood framed canopy and columns with hardie clad surfaces and wood picket guardrails around the patio. The swimming pool has been removed from this proposal as well as the fence surrounding it. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES Same as before. See page 6 of this report. SITING The building has been moved away from the property line along Scott Street with the setback to the front of the porches to be approximately 6 and 10 feet. The setbacks on 9th and 10th streets are approximately 10 feet. The parking lot will have about 57 parking spaces, and increase of 7 spaces. Landscaping in the parking lot has yet to be reviewed against the landscape ordinance. Interior planting beds are required by the landscape ordinance and the final arrangement of those islands have yet to be determined. Page 15 of 33 Any improvements in the public right-of-way, such as trees, lights and sidewalk arrangement are in the public right-of-way and are not reviewed by the Commission. HEIGHT The overall height of the building has been reduced five feet to a maximum height of 44’-5”. The southern part of the block is lower than the north side with the first floor being 36” difference in finished floor level from one end to the other. The floor level was reduced one foot overall. The roof pitch was reduced from 8 ½ in 12 to 6 ½ in 12. This accounts for the additional 4 feet in height reduction. PROPORTION The reduction of the number of units by creating the courtyard reduces the perceived length and mass of the building from Scott Street. RHYTHM The façade materials of the building have been changed. The areas to be bricked versus the areas to have Hardie plank siding have been changed so that the façade resembles nine individual buildings instead of one along Scott Street. The brick will extend from the first floor to the top of the gable as will the Hardie plank siding. This will give the rhythm of a brick structures alternating with wood sided structures. The courtyard area in the perceived center of the building will have a brick corbel detailing without the appearance of a pitched roof. On the east, south and north side of the building, the different color of the siding will break up the mass of the building. ROOF AREA The roof pitch has been reduced to lower the overall height of the building. The pitch was 8 ½ in 12 and is now 6 ½ in 12. ENTRANCE AREA The number of entrances is unchanged. The main entrance in the center of the building along Scott Street will be farther away from Scott Str eet in a courtyard setting. Multiple historic apartment buildings in the area have a courtyard in the center of the building where the main entrance or entrances to individual apartments are off the courtyard. Some examples are along 6th Street. The entry will now feature a porch with columns and a section of metal fence along the top of the porch roof. This will not be a balcony, only a decorative feature. The 3 foot fence to the courtyard is shown on the plan in the same plane as the building façade. With it being the same height as the fences along the rest of Scott Street, the argument could be made to bring the fence to the property line and increase the area of the courtyard. WALL AREAS See comments above under Rhythm. DETAILING Same as before. See page 7 of this report. FAÇADE See comments above under Rhythm. Otherwise, no changes. SCALE The scale of the building is quite larger than the surrounding buildings but less than some in the district. The Arts Center and the Law School building dwarf this proposed building in scale and mass. A similar building, in mass, would be the apartments on the frontage road between 10th and 11th street, commonly called the Law School Apartments. The removal of the three units in the center of the building on Scott Street reduces the scale of the building when traveling along Scott Street. MASSING The building has been moved farther away from Scott Street. The massing of the Page 16 of 33 building is reduced with the increased setbacks of the façade and the differing treatment of the materials with the brick and siding. The raised patios that used to be on the property line have been removed and now at grade landscaping is in its place. Individual covered porches with columns have been added to the eight units that have doors that front onto Scott Street. A 3 foot tall fence with the same height gates has replaced the raised patio and 42 inch fences on top. The overall height of improvements has gone from a range of 72 – 84 inches (raised patio plus railing) to a 36” metal fence uniformly along Scott Street. This has the effect of reducing the mass of the building. FENCE The fence along the east property line at the alley will be a 6’ wood privacy fence with the salts laid horizontally. The fence along the other three property lines will be an Ameristar Montage Classic welded steel fence. The fence surrounding the parking will be a six foot tall fence while the fence around the building will be a three foot tall fence. It is recommended that all metal fences be installed along the grade instead of being installed stair stepped up the slope. This reduction in the height of the fence along Scott Street is more in keeping with the residences on the other side of the street that have fences. The swimming pool has been removed from this proposal as well as the fence surrounding it. SITE DESIGN The parking lot is shown to be asphalt. The Design guidelines state that parking lots should be concrete or gravel. The garbage compactor enclosure sits on the southeast corner of the lot. The gate will be the same as the other metal fencing on the site with the addition of a solid metal sheet attached to the fencing on the back side to shield views of the equipment. The walls of the enclosure will be plain concrete block with a painted skim coat. Gates for pickup will swing into the right of way for 10th Street. A franchise permit will be needed for this use of the public right-of-way. In summary, the following changes have been made to the application.  The overall height of the building has been reduced,  the center three units have been removed creating a courtyard entry to the building,  the entire building has been shifted to the east away from Scott Street,  the fencing along Scott Street has been reduced to 36”,  porches with columns have been added to the eight units facing Scott’  Changes have been made to the arrangement of siding versus brick areas that emulate individual separate structures Staff believes that the sum of the changes listed above and described in this staff report reduce the height and perceived mass and scale of the building. The new siting of the building along with the changes from raised patios on the property line to lowered porches that sit off the property line also contribute to a reduced sense of mass and scale of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Obtain Franchise Permit for trash dumpster enclosure gate swinging into right -of-way. 3. Approval of the Landscape plan. Page 17 of 33 COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2016 Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, stated that it had come to the attention of this office today that there had been contact by members of the commission by a recused member of this commission expressing ideas concerning the project. That communication is improper and creates issues. The office could not address the issues on this short time frame and recommended that the Commission defer to the May 2016 meeting in order for the City Attorney’s office to recommend on which way would be best to proceed. A motion was made to defer the 901 Scott Street COA to the May 2016 meeting by Commissioner Toni Johnson based on unresolved legal issues. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Wilson), 1 recusal (Kelley) and 1 absent (Carman). Chair Bowen apologies to the applicants for deferring one additional month but most of the commissioners felt like they should get the legal issue resolved before voting on the item. Mr. Minyard stated to the audience that all emails that were sent in have been given to the commissioners. He continued that the next hearing would be on May 9th. Those here for the 901 Scott street application could leave if they wish or could stay for the other items on the agenda. Page 18 of 33 DATE: April 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Troy Deal ADDRESS: 901 Cumberland COA REQUEST: Infill single family house PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 901 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “The West 93.35’ of lot 1 and the North 25’ of the West 93.35’ of Lot 2 of Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is a vacant lot. The Sanborn maps show that in 1897, there was a one story house at 303 Ninth facing north. The house at 309 was there in its current form. In 1913, the two houses that are there today are shown on the map with the lot in review vacant. This application is for construction of an infill single story single family house. In addition to this COA, there is an item for a PRD Planned Residential Development that has been approved at the Planning Commission to subdivide the original lots 1, 2 and 3, (houses at 309 E Ninth Street, 909 S Cumberland and the vacant lot) into three separate lots to accommodate the new structure. This item also approved the setbacks of the new house. This will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until your approval of the COA. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. Location of Project Page 19 of 33 The four houses on the 900 block of Cumberland. Contributing and Non-contributing map Proposed Front (Cumberland Street) Façade of house for March 14, 2016 hearing PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require Page 20 of 33 a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be reviewed: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. Page 21 of 33 (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS …related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) …related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10) New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the Page 22 of 33 area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction. The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the following criteria:  Architectural style  General design  General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures  Siting  Height  Proportion  Rhythm  Roof area  Entrance area  Wall areas  Detailing  Facade  Scale  Massing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed house is contemporary. GENERAL DESIGN The house features multiple levels of flat roofs with accent pylons and chimney masses of standard concrete block masonry. The exterior materials are cedar horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES From the materials list included: Page 23 of 33 The front door will be a custom wood door with a glass insert. The door on the south side behind the fence will have a storefront clear anodized aluminum finish. Windows will be storefront clear anodized aluminum frames. Lighting will be can lights above the porch and on the front façade over front two bedrooms. At the garage, there will be two wall mounded sconces in aluminum. Box gutters will be on the house instead of the typical linear gutters. Downspouts will be on the north, east and south sides of the structure and the downspouts will color match the underlying material. There will be parapets on the roof. The roof will be of a PPO Firestone membrane. There will be aluminum flashing on the top of the parapet. SITING The front yard (Scott Street) setback will be 15’ and the Ninth Street setback will be 13’. These two setbacks will be somewhat closer than the others on Scott or Ninth Streets. The side yard and rear yard setbacks will be 5’ each. HEIGHT The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) The existing four houses on Cumberland are all two story houses with pitched roofs with combinations of gables and dormers facing Scott to give them more perceived height. The house on Ninth is a one story with pitched roof. There are no flat roof single family contributing houses in the district. There are, within a block of this application, some outside the area of influence, two story flat roofed apartments and one and two story flat roofed commercial buildings. This house will have two or three steps into the house unlike the rest on the block face which have a raised foundation with 5 or more steps onto the porches. PROPORTION The proportion of this proposed house is rather low and horizontal unlike the taller or box like proportion of the four square and Queen Anne houses on the block. RHYTHM is defined as the harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or asymmetrically and their relative positions. This house does not have a much rhythm as others in the area do when comparing the location of windows and doors. ROOF AREA The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) There are no contributing single family houses in the district with a flat roof. This one story single family home’s flat roof does not “blend” as the ordinance requires in Sec 23-120(f) nor it is “similar” as the guidelines recommend on page 55 under New Construction. ENTRANCE AREA The entrance faces Cumberland Street but does not have the proportion of the other porches on the blockface as defined as a ratio of porch width to overall façade width. WALL AREAS On Cumberland Street, most of the façade is horizontal wood siding with Hardie board accents. The Hardie Board will be panels 24” wide that create a frame around the sides and top of the wall. On the 9th Street side, The Hardie board panels constitute the majority of Page 24 of 33 the façade with horizontal wood siding accent on garage door only. The Hardie board panels vary from 3’ by 8’ vertical panels to 2’ by 4’ horizontal panels. The east side will be all horizontal Hardie panels 2’ tall. The south side is mostly Hardie panel with some wood siding. The south façade will be mostly obscured by a 6’ privacy fence. DETAILING This house, being a contemporary house, has more subtle details than others. The details will lie in the joining of the Hardie panels and the wood siding, the join ing of the window units and doors, etc. FAÇADE The house features multiple heights of walls in the structure. The exterior materials are cedar horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding. The windows are rather unadorned as is typical in contemporary houses. SCALE This is a one story with flat roof which does not blend with the neighborhood. The scale of porch is smaller than the rest on block. Overall, this house will read as inconsistent with the block in terms of height. The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) MASSING The massing of this house in not consistent with the houses on the blockface nor the rest of the houses on the block. This one-story house is shorter than the adjacent one story house on Ninth Street and noticeably shorter than the rest of the houses on Cumberland and the block. The combination of lower height and larger width on the front (57’ which is longer than the original width of a lot) makes the mass of this structure incompatible. On page 55 of the Guidelines, it states: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. FENCE The fence will be cedar or redwood in a horizontal application. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there two calls of a neutral nature regarding this application. Based on the above review of the general design, height, proportion, roof area, entrance area, scale, and massing, Staff cannot support this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. He noted that there were one person in opposition to the project and one neutral. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked about the setback of the building. He wanted to know if the 15 foot setback was within 10 percent of the setback of the other homes. Mr. Minyard said he did not measure them but it appears to be closer than the other houses on Cumberland. The map is drawn to scale. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the size of the lot width. Mr. Minyard clarified the proposed lot size and configuration. The lot width along Cumberland will be 75 feet, larger than the typical lot. Vice Chair Russell asked if this was a corner lot and if the front door was on Cumberland. Mr. Minyard stated this was correct. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented about the height in respect to 309 E 9th and of the houses on Cumberland. Page 25 of 33 Commissioner Page Wilson asked if it was the argument of Staff that it could not have a parapet roof since it was a house. Mr. Minyard responded that it was not. Vice Chair Russell spoke of the contributing houses in the area and flat roof of the application. Commissioner Johnson stated that they were talking about the contributing houses in the area. Troy Deal, the application, stated that this would be one of the first new homes north of 630. It was their dream home. The 1960s architecture is the anchor for the design, working off the Arkansas Arts Center. They submitted a letter from Margaret Kemp in support to of the application in addition to a packet of photos of the site and general area. They stated that they wanted a single story house, a modern cottage. He continued that they did not need or desire a two story house and wanted access to the courtyard area from the main part of the house. He said that they had met with Staff to talk materials and planning process. They wanted the house to look different with materials of today. Mr. Deal continued that they adjusted the setback of the garage to 18’ in response to the Planning Commission concerns for off street parking. They added a covered front porch that is 17 feet long and lined up the house with the houses to the south. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented that the plan I beautiful but is concerned about the 900 block of Cumberland with the four two story gabled homes and that the proposed house does not continue the proportions of the existing houses. She continued about the rhythm of the other structures to the south. Mr. Deal stated that the top of the gable on 309 e 9th is 22’ tall, and the top of the concrete on the proposed house is 21’ tall. He stated that it should not match the historic houses along Cumberland. Commissioner Johnson stated that the form itself does not blend and suggested they look at the historic streetscape. This structure changes the rhythm of the street. She does not feel that it is appropriate for the corner. Commissioner Wilson asked if the foundation could be raised. Mr. Deal stated that it could be raised but it was designed for elderly living. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar commented that there were no peaks on the roof. If it blends, it would preserve the feel of the neighborhood. She feels that it is too jarring and out of place. Mr. Deal stated that there is a commercial building across the street. Commissioner Pekar felt that there should be more of what is there now. Commissioner Wilson stated that Mark Brown and Jill Judy (the owners of the property) have appeared before the commission before. He said that someday that something would be built there. He doubted that it would be big houses that match the foursquare. The house at 909 Cumberland (two story blue house) will be single family, and then there is Poe travel with two houses and then a five plex on the corner of 10th. He stated that he did not have any problem with the design and talked about the variety of the neighborhood architecture. Michael Puckett, the applicant, spoke of the changes of sizes in the area. Mr. Deal, also spoke of the Heiple Wiedower study of infill with its variable height and sizes. Commissioner Wilson spoke of historically a mixture of sizes and mixed income in the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson stated that her comment was not about size of structure but was about the low and horizontal nature of the house versus the tall and vertical aspect of the existing houses on Cumberland. She stated that a pitched roof would be needed. Page 26 of 33 Commissioner Jennifer Carman echoed Commissioner Johnson’s comments. She spoke of the strong statement of continuity and the rhythm of the houses along Cumberland and that this is a unique street in the continuity. She sees the streetscape as a whole. She stated that corner lots are important and the jarring effect of the differing rhythm. Mr. Deal states that it will be another 20 years before new house will be built on this lot. Vice Chair Russell spoke of the siting of the house and that a front door on 9th street would be an easier sell. On the courtyard, it is an opportunity to break from the Charles Thompson houses to the south. He said that it related more to the commercial across the street. The height of the building does not relate to the pink house. The mass change is too jarring and changes too many times for this lot. The proportion and masses change on 9th and Cumberland. He feels that the roof is okay and the house has a nice entrance. Vice Chair Russell continued that the thinks the design is not successful yet for this site. He stated that there are lots of examples to mak e the case to make the house blend more. The height on Cumberland is more important than the height on 9th. A sloped roof is not a condition for him. Vice Chair Johnson recommends deferring the item to work on the design. Mr. Deal said that if a pitched roof is a deal breaker, to please let him know now. He wanted to get feedback from the Commissioners. Vice Chair Russell said that the design is not successful yet, but it was not the place for the commission to design the house for them. Commission Wilson said that he was fine the way it is. Commissioner Pekar suggested to start with the guidelines, read through them, and then modify the design from there. Commissioner Carman stated she could not give concrete instructions, but suggested that they check the guidelines. She said to consider the height of the roof and that it is more about the rhythm along the rooflines. Mr. Puckett said that they could change the massing of the structure. He does not want to change to the overall design, but could tweak it. Commissioner Carman stated that she wanted to see an elevation of both street views with the houses drawn to scale. Commissioner Johnson commented on the setback that was close and that the foundation was lower on their structure. She commented on the streetscape being compose of squares and triangles and the rhythm of the streetscape, the proportion of the massing, and the proposed house being low and flat and square when everything else was not. He also mentioned the rhythm of the windows and doors. Commissioner Carman commented on the sequential view of the street with the rhythm of the windows and visual line of the windows. Commission Wilson stated that the windows are plain like the windows in the Thompson houses. Commission Johnson sated that she was looking at the form, mass and the streetscape, not at window mullions. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they wanted to defer their application. The applicant said yes. Jill Judy, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the district, commented on the peach colored house and that there were commercial structures historically on 9th Street. This property should not be held to a strict residential guidelines review. She Page 27 of 33 continued that the public housing across the street is not going away and that Cumberland Street traffic is one way south. She stated that it was not the most residential of vacant lots. She thinks that the house would be an asset to the neighborhood. She wishes that there was a way to get to yes on this project. Mark Brown, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the district, commented on the small size of the subject lot. He also stated that the Thompson houses on the block are too big for today’s market. He spoke of the parapet, projections of the house, height, etc. He stated that the Commission decides which portions of the guidelines are important and which are not. He said that maybe a coffee shop would be better, but a vacant lot is an eyesore. He thinks the design is good, but not exactly the same as the neighborhood. Commissioner Wilson stated that 100% of the block face was in support of the house. There was no one that spoke in opposition to the house. Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that the QQA was neutral on this application. They are supportive of contemporary architecture. The four houses on Cumberland are similar in massing and style. The pitched roof is appropriate, but the flat roof is not wholly inappropriate. They suggested raising the roof or the foundation, changing the setback of the rooms on the front of the house and enlarging the windows on the 9th street side. With changes to the house, it could be an asset to the neighborhood. There was a motion to defer the application to the next April 11, 2016 by Vice Chair Russell to modify the design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carman and the motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. The applicant was informed that the revisions would need to be in Staff’s inbox at 8:00 am on March 28th. STAFF UPDATE: March 14, 2016 Staff met with the applicant on March 16th to discuss any changes to the drawings before the next HDC meeting. The applicant discussed some preliminary changes and submitted final changes to the Staff before the March 28 deadline. Several changes have been made to the submission since the last review. The changes will be reviewed in the following paragraphs. See letter from applicant dated 3/25/16 on page 11 of this report. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed house is unchanged. GENERAL DESIGN The house now features only two levels of flat roofs instead of three. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES The material list has not changed. See page 6 of this report. SITING Same as before. See page 6 of this report. Page 28 of 33 HEIGHT The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) The existing four houses on Cumberland are all two story houses with pitched roofs with combinations of gables and dormers facing Scott to give them more perceived height. The house on Ninth is a one story with pitched roof. There are no flat roof single family contributing houses in the district. There are, within a block of this application, some outside the area of influence, two story flat roofed apartments and one and two story flat roofed commercial buildings. This house will have two or three steps into the house unlike the rest on the block face which have a raised foundation with 5 or more steps onto the porches. The height of the building has been changed. The two rooms and the entry hall that face Cumberland Street have been raised 3 feet to put the porch near the same level as the porches to the south on the historic houses. The porch ceiling height has also been modified to reflect the height of the porches on the houses to the south. The new drawings, the elevations and the perspective, have been scaled to show the relationship of the proposed structure to the existing ones. PROPORTION While the western part of the house has been raised three feet to more closely match the height of the existing porches, which raised the overall height of the structure, the proportion of this proposed house is still overall horizontal unlike the taller or box like proportion of the four square and Queen Anne houses on the block. The proposed house is wider than the original platted lots on the street. See photo of the existing houses along Cumberland on page 2 of this report. Revised Perspective for the April 11, 2016 hearing. Page 29 of 33 RHYTHM is defined as the harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or asymmetrically and their relative positions. Windows were added on the Cumberland Street side and an additional door with sidelight was added on the 9th Street façade. ROOF AREA The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) There are no contributing single family houses in the district with a flat roof. This one story single family home’s flat roof does not “blend” as the ordinance requires in Sec 23-120(f) nor it is “similar” as the guidelines recommend on page 55 under New Construction. The differing levels of the roof in addition to the layout of the flat roofs are complex in a different way than the other roofs on the block. The combination of the rectangular solids does not blend with the other structures. ENTRANCE AREA The porch on Cumberland Street was doubled in length to extend almost halfway across the house. The porch will be on the southern portion of the house to the right of the concrete block pylon. The porch will be raised to be similar to the porch height of the houses to the south. See the elevation on page 15 of this report. Columns have been added to the front porch to relate to the other front porches in the district. The division of the mullions at the sidelight to the front door has been changed to increase the number of panes in an effort to blend more with the other structures. WALL AREAS Changes have been made to the façade in addition to the added height on the western portion of the building. Additional windows have been added to the west (front) facade and an additional door with sidelight has been added on the 9th Street façade. Windows have been changed from a small pane on the bottom to a small pane on the top, m ore in line with the typical location of a transom window. The siding on the 9th Street side has been changed to reflect the porch on the historic home on 9th Street. DETAILING This house, being a contemporary house, has more subtle details than others. The details will lie in the joining of the Hardie panels and the wood siding, the joining of the window units and doors, etc. FAÇADE See comments in Wall Areas above. SCALE This is a one story with flat roof which does not blend with the neighborhood. Overall, this house will read as inconsistent with the block in terms of height and scale. The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) MASSING The massing of this house in not consistent with the houses on the blockface nor the rest of the houses on the block. This one-story noticeably shorter than the rest of the houses on Cumberland and the block. The combination of lower height and larger width on the front (57’ which is longer than the original widt h of a lot) makes the mass of this structure Page 30 of 33 incompatible. On page 55 of the Guidelines, it states: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. FENCE No change from before. In summary, the following changes have been made to the application.  The overall height of the building has been increased on the Cumberland Street side,  Length of front porch doubled,  Columns have been added to front porch,  Windows and doors have been added,  Window pane arrangement has been changed,  Porch ceiling height more closely aligns with adjacent structures,  Roof will only have two different heights,  Side door cover / extended overhang created to match height and site lines of neighboring front porch. Staff does not believe that with the changes made to the application that the structure blends with the area of influence or the existing neighborhood. Sec 23-120 of the ordinance states that “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” The Guidelines state on page 55 “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings.” This building does not blend in architectural style, proportion, roof areas, scale and massing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2016 Mr. Minyard made a brief staff presentation and discussed the changes that were made. The Staff Update portion of the Staff Report will show those changes. A new cover letter is also included in the report. Troy Deal, the applicant, made comments on the application. He stated that he hoped that the changes that were made we in keeping with what they heard at the last meeting. He added that the changes to the 9th Street side simulate columns as well. Michael Puckett stated that they tried to mimic the doors and windows on the 9th Street side from the Cumberland Street side. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell expressed that he was glad that the applicants had t aken the option to defer and modify their drawings based on comments. He said that they had done a wonderful job on the design and disagrees with Staff recommendation. He continued that the mass and scale of the new design is more in keeping with the rest of the district. Given that it is a corner lot, the change to have doors on both sides is an improvement. He is in favor of approving the design. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar stated that she is still concerned that this structure does not blend as well with the other structures. She noted that nothing has been said about the exterior materials that she feels is incompatible with the area. Flat surfaces, profiles of the siding, etc., are her concerns. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked what the façade surfaces are. Mr. Deal Page 31 of 33 stated they are Hardipanel systems with a Tamlyn trim which is a material of the day. The wood is either wood siding or a manufactured product that looks like wood laid horizontally and speaks to the horizontal siding of older houses. The structures that are like chimneys will be made of concrete block. Windows will be aluminum. Commissioner Page Wilson stated that James Hardie materials are listed in the guidelines as an appropriate material. There was a discussion between Commissioners Pekar and Wilson on the guidelines and what they said on the use of Hardie planks versus Hardie panels. Commissioner Johnson commented on a question from last month’s hearing. The question was if a modern building could be built in the district. Her response was that it could if it met the guidelines. In her opinion, this project has been successful in pulling those aspects forward with the mass and scale of the structure. The columns on the porch mimic the others on the block. The rhythm of the doors and windows are appropriate. Contemporary buildings can be successful if the district if done in a sympathetic way. Commissioner Wilson stated he was in support of the application and considered the building a record of our time. He stated that HardieBoard was an approved material for infill. Commissioner Pekar stated that HardiePlank was recommended because it mimicked the horizontal lap siding. not hardi board in the large sheets. Commissioner Russell said that the hardi board were to mimic stucco finish on houses. Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to read the section to the Commission. Mr. Minyard read from the Guidelines in the New Construction of Primary and Secondary buildings under #4 as written on page 4 of the Staff report: “Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color.” Commissioner Dick Kelley stated that this is a corner lot and have done an excellent job to fit the structure in. With the adjacent buildings being one story and two story, there is no way to match both. Robert Longo, a downtown resident, spoke in support of the application. Brian Duncan, owner of the print shop across street, hoped that the Commission would vote in support of the application. He is tired of the undesirable element and would hope it would not remain a vacant lot. Charles Penix, who works for Cromwell Architects, spoke in favor the application. He spoke of the importance for life and vitality in the neighborhood. Mark Brown, owner of four buildings on the block, spoke in favor of the application. There was nobody to speak in opposition to the application. Commissioner Russell made a motion to approve the application as submitted for today’s meeting. Commissioner Kelley seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Pekar) and one absent (Carman). Commissioner Pekar said the she did not feel that it blended with the neighborhood. Page 32 of 33 DATE: April 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Robert Airo, First Lutheran Church ADDRESS: 700 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Roof Replacement The applicant on March 30, 2016 informed Staff via email that the abstract list would not be available for them in time to provide adequate notice to property owners in the area. Staff is recommending deferral to the May 9, 2016 meeting for failure to notify. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral. COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2016 Staff informed the audience that the notices had not been met on this item and recommended deferral for one month to the May 2016 meeting. A motion to defer to the May 2016 meeting was made by and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Carman). DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was emailed to the Commission earlier. The spreadsheet also has the COAs, so the commissioners see both. Guidelines Revision The Commission will be meeting in two weeks. The Commission will get their item this Thursday. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:40 p.m. Attest: Chair/ { ! "k- , .kA�6j Secretary/Staff Date Date Page 33 of 33